The Herald states that the police didn't really have to wait for a search warrant for that Ford Escort impounded in the quadruple-murder case:
... In addition to consent, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would have forgiven any urgency by investigators to go through the vehicle if they believed there was a firearm either in plain view or concealed inside, or if there was reason to believe the car was involved in the commission of a crime. ...
John, however, suggests the Herald not give faulty legal advice - a judge could later rule that the search didn't meet Constitutional muster and throw out all the evidence:
... Getting prior judicial approval for a search by obtaining a search warrant gives a much higher probability that any evidence found will be held up at trial.
So why, in an important homicide case, does the Herald promote the notion that the police should take the quick route and risk losing critical evidence? Seems odd.
My standard newspaper disclosure.